Driving while intoxicated kills 10,000 people a year. Alcohol needs to be regulated exactly as the anti's propose for guns - after all, if it saves one life, it's worth it.

Mandatory three day wait for purchase. If it saves one life . .
Mandatory capacity limit equal to three beers. If it saves one life . .
Registered buyers list, with full and complete documentation each time, to show they were in possession while driving. If it saves one life . . .

There a law sitting on the DOT desk about mandatory requirements for a back up camera. 160 children a year are killed because the driver (usually Mom) can't see where they are. That's 260% of the number shot in school. Ask why it hasn't been forced on the automakers yet, after all, if it saves one life . . .

We could go on for pages with examples. The point is, USE IT! The more you use it, the quicker it becomes a tired cliche, and someone who might have been responsive to it initially will quickly be aware of how it's used to take advantage of them.

As of 1998, airbags saved 22 people for every 1 person they killed, according to the NHTSA. Firearms are also used to save more lives than they are used to take unjustly.
And that's another concept a lot of people cannot fathom: the justified killing of another human being.

"If it saves one life" could be used as a reason to curtail any first Ten Ammendments in the name of the 'common good', something America seems all too willing to do these days.

We violate the 1st because all those protesters might just hurt someone.
The 2nd because the US Constutution apparently isn't law in NY,CA,MD,NJ
The 4th because they might be selling DRUGS.
The 5th because again they MIGHT BE SELLING DRUGS!
The 6th because he's a 'terrist.
The 8th because 3 strikes is 3 strikes.
etc.

Why the statement:“We must do it my way if it saves even one life.” is the enemy of rational decision-making, how it cuts off constructive debate and how it attempts to vilify all who oppose the person making the statement.

That's just it: the other side is not interested in a logical debate, for they would lose as they have in the past, because logic is on our side.

We are getting railroaded by the uninformed masses, and it is happening because tens of millions have been convinced by our "education" system that we live in a "Democracy", that you can depend upon the government to give you everthing you might need, and that other people's property and rights can be taken because it is expedient to some popular "need".

These "needs' can be manufactured whenever necessary, with the help of an effective political machine and a compliant press ..... it has happened before and it always ends up the same: The State amasses power at the expense of the Individual..... "If it only saves one life ....." is an excuse to stop thinking .... and an excuse for the State to do anything it wants, to whoever it wants, whenever, just so long as they can whip up popular support.

__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

A couple of other treatments of this general topic with slightly different twists.

This author calls it the "Fallacy of Infinite Value", and points out that life, while valuable, is not infinitely valuable as the "If it saves one life..." argument implies. Society makes daily decisions that weigh the cost of human life against various returns.http://scruffylookingcatherder.com/?tag=/Infinite+Value

This author approaches the fallacy from the standpoint that while the "If it saves one life..." argument attempts to imply that human life is being weighed against something less valuable, it is very often true that a more careful analysis will demonstrate that there is actually a life vs. life balance that is not immediately obvious.http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2013...mensurability/

For example, the argument that banning privately owned guns must be done if it saves one life, generally ignores the fact that privately owned guns are frequently used to save lives. In the final analysis, banning them could actually cost more lives than it saves.

The argument itself makes me sick, and is probably the most Un-American thing to ever come out of a presidents mouth. Obama is basically saying if giving up your freedoms saves just one life it is worth it. Well, hate to break it to you buddy, but our country was founded by people GIVING their lives to protect our freedoms, and Obama wants to take them away with the stroke of a pen. Absolutely disgusting.

Reading the first article linked by JohnSKa is also related, though certainly not identical, to one of the arguments that I have raised. I don't know if it has a proper title, but I think of it as the "value judgment" argument.

The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others. I've been called out for saying that I don't really care about the statistics on "gun deaths." (as though those are really any more problematic than, say, "chisel deaths.") There's a reason that I'm not all that concerned about the numbers, though. I've made a value decision: I value the lives of my friends and family members more than I value the lives of methheads who kick in doors at 3 a.m. That is one of several reasons that I own firearms.

When I have time to illustrate this principle, I use what I call the Magical Gun Law example:

Quote:

Assume, just for a moment, that Congress could pass a law that would magically eliminate all gun deaths in this country instantly, except for one. Now assume that the one gun death is your child. How would you vote?

__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others.

Politically unpopular, yes.

Actuarially, not so much. The insurance industry (and the courts) do it all the time.

And this is where the whole thing breaks down. When you compare the cost of these measures with the value, in actuarial terms, of one child's life... it's absurd.

But I'm really, really careful in picking the people with whom I use this argument. Most hate it.

"Priceless" is one of my least favorite words.

__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

We have seen that gun bans don't have the desired effect. Assuming the worst and law abiding citizens are disarmed AND violence does not decrease, what comes next?

I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but people who really love the ability and freedom to do what you want when you want and to go anywhere you want without having to show your papers are going to have to remain vigilant.

Maybe I am paranoid but what I see is a move by some to have total control over others without the fear of armed pushback.

I would love to be left alone. It seems that far too many people just do not grasp that.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.